The U.S. Senate will vote as early as Monday, August 3, on a bill — strongly backed by National Right to Life — that would cut off all federal funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and all of its affiliates.

Please act immediately to convey your strong support for this billhere.

Kansans for Life is pleased that Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran are co-sponsors of S. 1881, which provides that “no Federal funds may be made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics.” The bill also contains a finding that states, “All funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide women’s health care services.”

Pro-lifers must stay informed and share on social networking these horrific revelations at Planned Parenthood. Mainstream media sources have practically blocked this story, read more here.

PPFA is the nation’s largest provider of abortions — about one-third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at PPFA-affiliated facilities.

PPFA also receives at least $528 million annually from the federal government or other levels of government.

PPFA affiliates and senior physician-executive have been caught on undercover video as trafficking in organs from aborted babies, triggering Congressional and state investigations.

See the latest undercover expose by the Center for Medical Progress here (warning: contains image of dismembered unborn child). An overview of the video revelations is here.

Kansans for Life applauds pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback for asking for a probe into potential baby body part trafficking in Kansas. See video excerpts of the Governor’s most recent press conference on this breaking scandal here and here.

Her headline reads “Anti-Choicers Are Going to Take Away Second-Trimester Abortion Without Much Notice” and though the actual content of her piece is all over the place, her message is clear; she is

distressed that a significant abortion restriction is now available to reach the Supreme Court, and

frustrated that her side not only has no defense, it can’t even discuss the law’s content for PR reasons.

They have no defense because there is no defense for dismemberment abortions which crush, tear and pulverize living unborn human beings. Marcotte dares not even mention the unborn baby, which is the focus of this new law.

By necessity all state pro-life measures attempt to navigate the landscape and boundaries set out by the U.S. Supreme Court. That includes understanding that with the 1992 Casey decision, the justices have left the door ajar for additional limitations.

Marcotte recognizes that the authors of various pro-life bills over the past decade have taken different approaches. Why wouldn’t they probe and prod, looking to see what the justices will accept? That only makes sense.

Marcotte tries to dismiss these laws, which is her prerogative, but it is simply foolish to dismiss the fact that there is a public receptivity to them.

Marcotte does recognize that this dismemberment ban (with language provided by the top experts at the National Right to Life Committee) is a genuine threat to the abortion status quo. The law is a natural follow-up to the ban on partial-birth abortion, upheld in the 2007 Gonzales v Carhart ruling. Let me explain.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act has several purposes

to educate the public about the gruesome torture inflicted on the living, unborn child in a D&E dismemberment abortion;

to stop such abortions; and

to present the Supreme Court with a bill that is consonant with what a majority of the High Court held in the partial-birth abortion ruling.

Abortion attorneys themselves anticipated–with dread, of course– this ban on dismemberment abortions after Gonzales. In Gonzales, the justices upheld the public’s right, through duly passed laws, to halt a barbaric abortion method, despite the protests of abortionists that this partial-birth method was “safer” for women and needed.

States have provided a variety of significant pro-life measures that the Court may indeed soon chose to weigh in on, including conflicting rulings on the woman’s full access to viewing her unborn child’s ultrasound prior to abortion.

However, this ban on dismemberment abortions would present the Court with a direct follow up to their last abortion ruling. That is what scares Marcotte.

The Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,SB 95, passed out of the House Federal and State Affairs committee this morning.

The committee rejected a disingenuous 19 page amendment from pro-abortion Rep. John Wilson (D- Lawrence) and passed the bill 14-6 with two absent.

The House will take up the measure for a floor vote, possibly next week. The Senate has already passed the bill and Gov. Sam Brownback has promised to sign it.

Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer offered testimony in support of SB 95 on Monday, saying no issue in the 2015 session was more important than adhering to the sanctity of life.

“It is remarkable to think anyone could oppose prohibiting a tortuous act that literally dismembers an unborn child limb-by-limb. …just as in the case of partial birth abortion, even many of those who may consider themselves “pro-choice” cannot allow a gruesome procedure like dismemberment abortions to occur in our state.”

SB 95 bars the inhumane and nearly inconceivably painful D&E method of abortion in which the abortionist tears apart a living unborn child in the womb with sharp metal tools.

The legislation was provided by the National Right to Life Committee and tailored for Kansas. It takes into consideration some of the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used in 2007 in upholding a ban on partial-birth abortions. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the High Court said,
” the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” (Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 158)

Monday was the first committee hearing for Kansas’ Senate Bill 95 — the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act–a top legislative priority of Kansans for Life and the National Right to Life Committee.

This first-in-the-nation measure, SB 95 is co-sponsored by 25 state Senators. The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act was the subject of the Monday afternoon meeting of the Senate Public Health & Welfare committee, chaired by Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook.

Testimony from four opponents to SB 95 was expectedly weak, but not to worry, the mainstream media came to their rescue (more on that later).

The position of both Elise Higgins (Planned Parenthood) and Julie Burkhart (Trust Women) was essentially this:

As usual, nothing original or substantive was offered. And in fact, their claims ignore the reality of U.S. Supreme Court abortion rulings that repeatedly uphold the

State’s “compelling interests” in respecting the dignity of the unborn and in protecting the integrity of the medical profession.

The other two testimonies from opponents were also predictable. One young mother said she was grateful to have had her abortion at age 19. A Harvard neurology professor (Note: not an ObGyn) insisted that the D & E dismemberment method is standard of care for second trimester abortion and the “safest” method.

What none of them said, but what many published articles reveal, is that the “advantage” (if that word should even be used) of dismemberment abortions is that they are–wait for it–cheaper and faster!

The 2009 National Abortion Federation Training manual affirms not only is the

D & E method the “most cost-effective,” it prevents women from having to endure the “prolonged labor experience”

of other 2nd trimester abortion methods (in other words, from having to deliver their dead babies).

When opponents concluded their comments, an observer to the hearing might have reasoned that SB 95 is an affront to women

and a threat to the abortion industry [correct].

FOCUS ON VICTIMIZED UNBORN CHILDThat’s when I testified to the committee, as KFL’s legislative director. I reminded the senators that, “The focus of this bill is the small, living, human unborn child facing a brutal and inhumane dismemberment abortion.”

You could have heard a pin drop.

As I spoke, I held fetal models of the unborn child, first at 14 weeks and then, at 20 weeks gestation; the ages during which dismemberment is the ‘standard’ method for abortion.

I briefly described the attributes and movements of babies at that age in the womb.

Then I noted what the U.S. Supreme Court itself admitted. To quote Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”

I mentioned that even one such barbarous act should not be tolerated. Then I pointed out the fact that, elsewhere in the legislature, there is a bill advocating the adoption of the most humane, painless way to euthanize pets.

Unfortunately, that irony was lost on the media. Speaking of the media….

Although we did get decent but very short coverage in a television news spot at both 5 & 6 pm, the 10 pm news completely omitted SB 95, choosing instead to spend an unusually long segment of five minutes on the shooting of a neighborhood dog. Seriously.

Not one print media used any phrase about the tearing apart of limbs of the living child in dismemberment abortions.

Most of them are referring very antiseptically to the bill as a “method of abortion affecting 8% of abortions.” One story said SB 95 refers to “so-called dismemberment.”

That’s why I so appreciated Andrew Bair’s very excellent analysis yesterday of the misreporting about this bill. He wrote that the media“… purposefully omits the key details about what happens to the unborn child, skipping over the dismemberment process entirely….”

Thus, my duty yesterday was to focus the committee and the audience on every painfully victimized member of our human family that was tortured to death in each of the 578 dismemberment abortions that occurred in 2013 in Kansas.

All eyes turned to “reliably red” Kansas in October for reasons no pro-lifer wanted. Polls indicated the campaigns of both our pro-life U.S. Senator Pat Roberts and our pro-life Governor Sam Brownback were surprisingly struggling.

Already active, pro-lifers brought their far-flung efforts to a whole new level, determined to turn that around. Last night those immense efforts paid off. First, a quick summary.

Expected to either lose or win by a hair, pro-life stalwart Roberts, in fact, pulled off a sweet and convincing 53%-43% victory over pro-abortion “independent” challenger Greg Orman. Roberts’ re-election was crucial to taking control of the United States Senate out of the hands of pro-abortion Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Pro-life leader Brownback also surged to a win by a margin of50%-46% over pro-abortion Democrat State Rep. Paul Davis. The message was clear: Kansans want their administrative branch to stay pro-life.

KFL Executive Director, Mary Kay Culp, gave this commentary:”We worked as hard as we did because we knew that life issues in Kansas mean more to voters than any D.C. pundit understood, or poll took into account, which certainly proved true on election night!”

SENATE RACEKansas pro-lifers were alarmed in early summer at the upstart campaign of Senate challenger Greg Orman– a 45-year-old millionaire businessman without any record of public service and who had never held elected office. Millions of dollars in TV ads were introducing him as the solution to the ‘overriding problem of government gridlock.’ Even a few conservatives were showing some interest in Orman, despite his bizarre claim that he was unsure which party he would caucus with if he won.

But pro-lifers knew differently. They knew that Reid would not allow any pro-life measures passed in the House of Representatives to come to a vote, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Pro-lifers also were well aware of the anti-life provisions of ObamaCare that were protected by Reid. Even more troubling, Orman had no voting record to contrast with the 100% pro-life record of Sen. Roberts.

Kansans for Life’s PAC went into high gear with phone calls, radio spots and other initiatives. We produced and distributed well over one million educational pieces, which is four times the number we have done in the past.

Orman largely hid from the press and kept to the strict script ‘that he had tried both political parties and found both deficient’. His history undermined that claim (as did Vice President Joe Biden at the last minute).

Although Orman had briefly registered as a Republican, he had long been a Democrat, and over 90% of his past and very sizable campaign donations had gone to pro-abortion Democrats. Even Kansas Democrats believed Orman would caucus with Democrats–as shown when they coaxed their own Senate candidate, Chad Taylor, off the ballot on Sept. 3rd so that the field was cleared for Orman.

On Election Day, however, Orman’s pretense at independence was shattered when Vice President Biden, speaking on a radio program, said Democrats “have a chance of picking up an independent who will be with us in the state of Kansas.”

Sen. Roberts has always been endorsed by Kansans for Life and the National Right to Life Committee, and has been a lead supporter of important pro-life bills. Orman described himself as ‘pro-choice’ in an October 15 debate with Sen. Roberts and dismissed pro-life concerns as something to “get past.”

Sen. Roberts quickly rebutted Orman’s position as “unconscionable” and publicly promised “never to stop fighting for life.” Orman continued to act as if pro-life issues were unimportant. For example, he never honored his October 9 pledge to several national media outlets to read and comment on two pro-life bills awaiting passage in the U.S. Senate and supported by Sen. Roberts.

But on Tuesday, Kansans reaffirmed that pro-life issues are important, and re-elected U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts by over a 90,000 vote margin. We so appreciate the help of the NRLC-PAC in producing radio and print materials for this race.

GOVERNOR’S RACEAfter years of battling an administration that supported abortion and was pushing destructive embryonic research, Kansas pro-lifers were thrilled to turn that around with the election of Sam Brownback as governor in 2010. During his first term, he signed thirteen pro-life measures, including nationally-important bills championed by NRLC.

Gov. Brownback with KFL’s Mary Kay Culp Tues. night

The contrast could not have been more clear. Challenger Davis was part of the cadre of anti-life legislators fighting every one of those bills. In fact, during his tenure in the House from 2003-2014, Davis voted 80 times against pro-life bills!

It may not be well known that Kansas has long had three political players: pro-life GOPers, a dwindling number of pro-abortion GOPers, and Democrats, who are now 95% pro-abortion. Bitter, pro-abortion GOP legislators who had fought the Brownback initiatives and lost their elections in 2012 added their support for Davis.

Going into the elections, the race was too close to call and early returns showing a slight lead for Davis had pro-lifers holding their breath. Those returns reflected that:

the bitter pro-abortion GOP wing seemed to be voting a straight GOP ticket except for Brownback and, to a lesser extent, Roberts.

But, as returns continued, Gov. Brownback finished ahead of Davis by about 33,000 votes. Another 33,000 votes went to a third party independent candidate, Keen Umbehr.

What you won’t see highlighted is that Brownback prevailed even in liberal-leaning Johnson County, the home of two abortion clinics, and serviced by the Kansas City Star, whose editorial board supports abortion and never overlooks a chance to slam Brownback.

We congratulate our many pro-life volunteers who helped insure another four years under Gov. Brownback! Social media has certainly impacted election politics, but in Kansas, the tried and true pro-life ground game was richly rewarded yesterday.

Orman was unknown to Kansans before he bought over a million dollars in TV ads this summer denigrating Washington’s “gridlock” politics, and offering to end it. Orman portrays himself as an “outsider”–an “Independent” candidate– even though more than 90% of his sizable past political donations have gone to Democrats.

Orman is quite the stealth candidate, except to the abortion industry. They know exactly who he is. Back to that in a moment.

Sen. Roberts released a great new radio ad yesterday, with a crystal clear message that cuts right to the heart of the differences between himself and Orman:

“The right to life is the most fundamental right we have.
From conception to natural death, the life of every Kansan, every American, every human should be honored and protected.
That’s why we need to keep Pat Roberts in the Senate.
Pat Roberts has a 100% pro-life voting record.
Endorsed by both National Right to Life and Kansans for Life, Pat has been a key supporter of every major pro-life initiative in Senate.
Pat opposes abortion on demand and federal funding of abortion.
If you care about life, Pat Roberts is the only choice.

Pat’s opponent, liberal Greg Orman, doesn’t share our values. Greg Orman is pro-abortion. Greg Orman would give President Obama another pro-abortion vote in the Senate. We can’t let that happen. Orman says we have to move past this issue. Pat Roberts, on the other hand, will never stop fighting for life. Protect life, Pat Roberts for Senate.”

Back to Greg Orman. He has never held public office, lacks any record of public service, and has generally avoided taking specific positions on the major issues.

But in a recent debate with Sen. Roberts, Orman described himself as “pro-choice.” He said he “trusts women” and the public should “get past” the abortion issue.

Surprise, surprise. All three Kansas abortion businesses are supporting him!

The Overland Park abortion clinic of Hodes & Nauser (father-daughter abortionists who have sued Kansas’ pro-life laws) have Orman signs in the windows.

Last Saturday Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri held a joint rally in support of Orman and other Kansas pro-abortion Democrat women candidates (Orman’s wife was advertised as being there on his behalf).

A letter praising Orman’s candidacy was published in the Wichita Eagle, written by Julie Burkhart, who has opened an abortion business (manned by “circuit-rider” abortionists) at the location of the late George Tiller’s infamous abortion clinic.

The choice for Kansans is clear: Pat Roberts, who has pledged, “never to stop fighting for life.”

Kansas and nine other states have passed abortion bans recognizing the unborn child as a pain-capable human being at 20 weeks post-fertilization, which is the same as being dated 22 weeks from woman’s last menstrual period, or LMP.

In 2012, Arizona passed a “hybrid” abortion law that included the fetal pain issue but would affect pregnancies 2 weeks earlier than all other similar “pain” bans. It was immediately sued, upheld in state district court and struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which does not govern Kansas). Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined the appeal to review the Ninth circuit’s decision.

Medical science now recognizes that the unborn child at 20 weeks post-fertilization possesses all the physiological structures needed for pain perception.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) created the pain-capable model legislation with hope the U.S. Supreme Court would review such a law, focusing specifically on scientific data about pain which has never been presented to them in an abortion case. This data includes studies outside the abortion arena verifying that the thalamus, not the cortex, is needed for humans to perceive pain. [Read documentation at doctorsonfetalpain.com about the issue.]

Some quick analysis of today’s decision:

1) The U.S. Supreme Court continues to resist taking abortion cases. This is the second abortion case deferred this term– the earlier Court decision avoided a chemical abortion law from Oklahoma. The Court is only pressured into taking on an issue when there are conflicting appellate decisions. Only one circuit has ruled on pain-related abortion bans, the (notoriously overturned) Ninth circuit.

2) The U.S. Supreme Court did not outright rule against the constitutionality of abortion bans for pain-feeling unborn children. But because the Court does not explain why they decline cases, we are left to wonder exactly why the Court declined to examine Arizona’s law. It may well be that the bill at their doorstep had too many dimensions: not only did Arizona conjoin a second issue of late-term abortion safety with the issue of pain to unborn babies–it also lowered the pregnancy date two weeks below where there is currently the most medical evidence for pain capability.

3) Abortion forces will certainly try to wave today’s action as a warning against states contemplating enacting pain-capable legislation. However, we still believe a “clean” law sticking to 20 weeks post-conception/22 weeks LMP is totally defensible. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 abortion ruling(Gonzales), affirmed that states have compelling interests for enacting abortion regulations, and declined to list those interests. The Gonzales ruling said states may pass protective legislation based on science even when “medical consensus” on that data was lacking.

We regret that the U.S. Supreme Court has skirted examination of the issue of fetal pain, and left abortion interests encouraged by today’s action.